BUSINESS LIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15325, 11 June 1913, Page 10

BUSINESS LIFE.

. DOMINIONS THOROUGHFARE IN LONDON. ' The London Daily Express, in an excel- ' lent column article, "Imperial Shop Win- ' dows," points out the growing preference of the Dominions for the establishment of emigration depots in the Strand. This is becoming more and more a thoroughfare for the display of the attractions of the Dominions,- and it is almost impossible now for visitors to London to miss gaining an intimate knowledge of colonial productions. ■ THE COST OF ARMAMENTS. Dealing with the attitude of business men to the British Government's latest financial proposals, London Truth says: — "The city took very little interest in the Budget. To the free-trader it is extremely satisfactory to find the country's revenues proving so elasticindeed in this respect we are the envy of the Continent, whilst even the Americans, who are not given to' singing the praises of other countries, are willing to admit that the old country practises an economic principle that gives it wonderful vitality. It is negatively satisfactory, too, that we are to get through another year without fresh taxation. But it is impossible to view with complacency the constant yearly additions being made to our expenditure upon such non-repro-ductiye work as the construction of armaments, and to know that in these piping times of trade prosperity, with taxation" upon a war basis, we are barely making ends meet. "When a joint stock business does exceptionally well it is usual to see exceptional sums placed to reserve, to be employed either in ngw enterprise that will add to future revenue or in increasing the funds operating to reduce liabilities. As a nation wo are not following the sound business rule, and to be told that the naval programmes of other countries compel us to waste our substance too does not make the position the less lamentable. A wellknown public man in a talk to pressmen a short time-ago said one of the most important functions of the press was to create an atmosphere. If only responsible journalists in this country and the Continent would band together to create an international atmosphere of protest against the ■ European armament spending folly, we might look within a few years for some relief. Goodness knows, Germany. France, and Austria need retrenchment in their national expenditure even more than does Great Britain." A "BUCKET SHOP" VICTIM. The way in which sharps extract cash from the pockets of the' flats is strikingly illustrated by the recent English case of Mr. H. H. G. Andrews, of Manor Farm, Kimpton. Through the medium of one of those obscure soi-disant financial sheets, which are circulated by the bucket-shop fraternity, Mr. Andrews was introduced to the firm of G. A. Fleming and Co., of St. James's Street, who, under that name and under a previous alias as " The United Stock Exchange," have repeatedly been pilloried in Truth. He remitted £12 for cover gambles, and an account was sent to him showing a small balance in his favour. This was to lure him on to larger ventures. The "simple countryman," as his counsel described him, received a visit from one Phillips, otherwise Fleming and Co., who went all the way to Rimpton, which is in Somerset, to persuade him to do " some- i thing bigger." Phillips, of course, had "a good thing coming off," and apparently it did not occur to the simple countryman as at all suspicious that a London financier should be so eager to share this good thing with him. The result of the visit was that Mr. Andrews parted with £200. This only whetted Phillips's appetite for more. He made a second journey to Somerset, and on that occasion he got a further £500. The victim was regaled with stories of deals in various stocks which were certain to yield large profits without the risk of any loss. Accounts were rendered of a series of bogus gambling transactions, arid, needless to say, the bucket shop finally alleged that all this money had been lost. A jury recently found that -Mr. Andrews was induced to enter into these transactions by fraudulent misrepresentations, and judgment was given in his favour for the return of the £700 (less £39 already paid) and costs.